Re: limiting our set of cities

Rodney Van Meter <> Thu, 20 February 2020 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A8312087D for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:06:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wv9x0Iy_kIE for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803:203:178:142:133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBFAE120897 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vanmetedneysmbp.fletsphone ( []) (Authenticated sender: rdv) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69693ECC; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:06:33 +0900 (JST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail1; t=1582203993; bh=iWvZ4MPHznK2ZvUasLnjITtMaHckYVTHJXLq5WKo4T0=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=vyOPaH6ilYJxRqgTVEavZwn/NcL5+ODJZe5xA5UvMpmne3k35gErJl12+ratKme3g y7Z1kZ9R4gakks/InKkvtqkWUSOJdFu7tKESQTL+ws3klrt8GbTvEsIqMQCfRSBKPO TBHOKiw2Kz5q25n/h5LSks5zCf6nFHeeDEV9n+RblDKpOle3GWDWOIHBx7Zn0Tmj3e i9zlQBMC63OCF5aJQUOlnLJrm5FjVyt4loSFDmQzneIWLNcCmj9ddr5AI4OJIrIpN7 8GhsOGwrKII7X+OgumwDlsxAB339enSf7dxd6iMXSZJnX7oB06QQGc7ljCb422g10q yio5QkaaN83qQ==
From: Rodney Van Meter <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3009FF1-7244-4B3C-ADE2-CDB2FBFA2CB7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:06:31 +0900
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Rodney Van Meter <>, Michal Krsek <>,
To: Christian Hopps <>
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:06:39 -0000

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 21:46, Christian Hopps <> wrote:
> I think that we should pick the top 12-16 locations that participants are from, then for each destination prior to it being considered we calculate the travel PAIN (cost + time) for that set of participants.
> It's hard to believe Singapore and Thailand would be in such heavy rotation if this were done. I like these places to visit, but really why are we going to them so often? A cynical part of me thinks "someone[s] important likes going there" might be carrying too much weight in these decisions.

To a first approximation, the pain is symmetric. I do about ten transpac or trans-asian trips a year, almost all in economy class, and I find it brutal; I don’t know how people who travel more (including a number on this list) do it.

Just remember this: <>

and if you think, “Well, but IETF participation isn’t evenly spread,” that might be true, but that’s a reason to *stay* in Asia-Pacific, not leave it. Many of them face additional barriers, including language, economics, and different employment structures that may not value IETF or give travel flexibility, so the hurdles are even higher than just hours in 33 inches seat-to-seat.

My kudos to all of you who have been making these treks multiple times a year for three decades now…